Talk:Football: Nottingham Forest defeat FC Utrecht 2-1
Add topicAI some used, ChatGPT possibly others.
[edit]Thank you. BigKrow (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Conflicted sources
[edit]Full Time FC Utrecht vs Nottingham Forest. UEFA Europa League. 5:45pm, Thursday 11th December 2025.
Stadion GalgenwaardAttendance: Attendance22,865.
FC Utrecht
1
M van der Hoorn (73'73rd minute)
Nottingham Forest 2 A Muinga (52'52nd minute) I da Cruz (88'88th minute)
Where did they come from? Confusing @Michael.C.Wright, @Gryllida BigKrow (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- In bold BigKrow (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Review notes
[edit]Please let me know what I need to do to get the story published, thank you. BigKrow (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Table
[edit]The third paragraph isn't displaying as a table as was intended. It would need to be formatted (see Help:Table). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4957907 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4957907 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:58, December 14, 2025 (UTC) with the following exceptions:
Comments by reviewer: While the style guide advises that most complete articles should contain a minimum of 100 words, this is guidance rather than a policy-based, mandatory threshold. The current draft delivers a full, verifiable account of the match, and contains the necessary WN:5Ws. The report is factually complete relative to what the sources provide. Given that nothing in policy prohibits concise reporting when the event itself is straightforward, publishing this as a short, accurate, match report, I believe is justifiable. An earlier version included an unsupported quote that appeared to be an AI-generated hallucination derived from a 2023 statement by Zinchenko[1]; removing that material was necessary for accuracy, but it reduced the article’s length. Contributors are strongly encouraged to fact-check all output from AI/LLM models when used, per WN:AI. If we continue to permit the use of AI, we must avoid AI slop. Note: An exception was made for the Style guide. Contributors are encouraged to correct all Style guide issues within the next 72 hours. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4957907 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:58, December 14, 2025 (UTC) with the following exceptions:
Comments by reviewer: While the style guide advises that most complete articles should contain a minimum of 100 words, this is guidance rather than a policy-based, mandatory threshold. The current draft delivers a full, verifiable account of the match, and contains the necessary WN:5Ws. The report is factually complete relative to what the sources provide. Given that nothing in policy prohibits concise reporting when the event itself is straightforward, publishing this as a short, accurate, match report, I believe is justifiable. An earlier version included an unsupported quote that appeared to be an AI-generated hallucination derived from a 2023 statement by Zinchenko[2]; removing that material was necessary for accuracy, but it reduced the article’s length. Contributors are strongly encouraged to fact-check all output from AI/LLM models when used, per WN:AI. If we continue to permit the use of AI, we must avoid AI slop. Note: An exception was made for the Style guide. Contributors are encouraged to correct all Style guide issues within the next 72 hours. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
-- Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)